The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-1, titled "Bible Questions and Answers."  A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.

Question

I have a question about Apostles. In 1 Corinthians 15:4-8, it says that, "He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also,"--the Apostle Paul.

What confuses me is that I have always understood that the Apostles were the twelve and Paul, and perhaps James. So what I find hard to reconcile here is that it says He appeared to all of the apostles, at least to the twelve, and then it mentions James and Paul specifically. But it also mentions that after He had appeared to all of those, except Paul, then to all of the apostles. Why would he mention extra apostles again there?

Answer

I think basically it is chronological: "He rose the third day, and He was seen of Cephas." I believe there is a certain chronological thing:

1st - He was seen by Peter
2nd - He was seen by the Twelve
3rd - He was seen by 500 brethren
4th - He was seen particularly by James

Now these two, Peter and James, indicate some private audiences, and I think there is reasons for both of them. First of all, I believe the Lord appeared specifically, in post-resurrection form to Peter, to confirm Peter, because Peter was to be so absolutely critical for the future of the Church. In fact, Peter is the main character in the first twelve chapters of the Book of Acts. And, Peter vacillated so much, and Peter denied Christ on three occasions, and Peter had so many difficulties in confirming his commitment to Christ, that I think there was a special time when the Lord appeared to Peter. All right, so that's noted. James was the Lord's half-brother, and James here, is not James the Apostle, but James the half-brother of the Lord, most likely, who became the leader of the Jerusalem Church. This probably was an indication of the initiation, if not the consummation of the conversion of James, who prior to this, along with the other half-brothers of Christ (according to John 7) didn't believe in Him, so it may have been that special time. All he is saying is, He appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve, then to the 500, then James, and then the Apostles again. In other words, it isn't so much that it is listing all those He appeared to as much as it is kind of giving you the flow of a chronology.  That's probably the best explanation. You could take it that "The Apostles" is used here in a very general sense, but I like to think of it in a more chronological thing.

Do you remember what He said to them, when he appeared to them the first time, He said, "Now, go into Galilee and wait there till I come, and I will appear to you in Galilee." So He appeared to them in Jerusalem, and went to Galilee later. He went to Galilee and appeared to them again. In fact, after His resurrection He never appeared to anybody but believers--never. People have always wondered why, if the Lord wanted to confirm the resurrection, He didn't appear to unbelievers? The answer to that question is, because Jesus said to them, "I am going to go away and you are never going to see Me again. If you don't believe what you have seen now--why would you believe that? I mean, if they wouldn't believe that He could raise the dead, and they didn't believe when He did all of the miracles, that they knew He did--what would resurrection mean to them? In fact, when they did face the resurrection they bribed the soldiers to lie about it, so it is pointless.  To try to bring apologetics to someone who's a rejecter is silly, "He that is convinced against his will is unconvinced still." So what you want to do, apologetics, or a defense of the faith, are a way to strengthen the believers who have to go out and evangelize. So that is why, if you wanted to pin me down to extrapolate a thought out of this--I don't think that apologetics is that strong an argument to an unbeliever who has turned away. I think apologetics strengthens the faith of one who is interested in Christ, and one who is committed to Christ.